TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mports of the appellant were found in excess, as per the quantity mentioned in import documents. There is nothing on record to establish that the appellant has mala fide to import excess quantity. However, there is no dispute that the excess quantity were imported therefore, the same is liable for confiscation but found without any mala fide intention. The duty attributed to the excess quantity go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating Authority has confiscated the excess found goods and imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1 Lakhs and penalty of ₹ 15,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order of the original authority, therefore the present appeal. 2. Shri Saurabh Dixit, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant have declared the quantity as mentioned in the import do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... YA SARKAR, SHRI DIPANKAR SEN 2018 (7) TMI 549-CESTAT Kolkata. 3. Shri D Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that there is no dispute on the facts of the case that the substantially excess goods were found as against the quantity declared in the Bill of Entry, therefore the Adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as mala fide to import excess quantity. However, there is no dispute that the excess quantity were imported therefore, the same is liable for confiscation but found without any mala fide intention. The duty attributed to the excess quantity goods is ₹ 1,24,350. I find that as against the duty liability of excess found goods, the redemption fine and penalty was very exaggerated which needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
